Pro, again, provides no evidence to support the resolution. Allow me to provide an example the opposite of the resolution.

You are running late for the bus, you run out the door and forget your lunch. You get on the bus and open your bag. You just remember that you put you put it in your bag last night. You find it in your bag even though you did not intend it being there. There is no chaos involved, you are not in utter confusion because you remembered that you put it in last night, no confusion is involved.

That is an example of cause and effect without chaos.

BOP is still on Pro, and he still hasn't provided any solid evidence to support his theory.

And where is your proof for this? BOP was on you, but you have provided none, Pro.

Conclusion

Pro has not provided any evidence, even though BOP was on him the whole time, he just restated the resolution and denied any of my definitions that I provided, even though they were from a reliable source. The resolution has not been proven valid in any way, and Pro didn't make one single attempt. Even though I didn't have BOP, I even stated an example of random cause and effect not turning out into chaos.

Reasons for voting decision: Well, Pro literally made no attempts to refute Con's arguments at all. Pro violated the established semantics, and made no arguments within the set semantic parameters. Con was the only one to use sources. Con actually used punctuation and grammar, while Pro's arguments, though short, were hard to read.

Reasons for voting decision: Pro made no attempt to rebut Con's arguments; Pro defied the definitions without *any* semantic arguments whatsoever. Pro did not fulfill their BoP. Con's grammar actually *had* punctuation. Con used the only sources in the debate.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.